3 ms·

There's a lot of components to what's being bundled here together, and not much space afforded emotionally to allow for a philosophical discussion about the ind

There's a lot of components to what's being bundled here together, and not much space afforded emotionally to allow for a philosophical discussion about the individual merits of an approach versus another, given each component taken by itself. If any discussion invariably reduces to "you're pro slavery and this is slavery" alike to how another one would boil down to "by the slippery slope principle: well you're basically Hitler"... well, there's no discussion happening, what we've got is angry people throwing statements past each other.

moate 4y ago
This is not reductive. This is slavery. When you call Hitler Hitler, you're not being dramatic, you're just pointing out facts. Sometimes there's nuance, sometimes there's "the state preserving slavery".
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  Perhaps it's slavery, perhaps it's not. I think you're jumping the gun in calling it a done, unambiguous fact. I think I'm a sensible person, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that it might be slavery. But if I read this article, I don't find it sufficient in proving its claim. It supposes that this might be slavery, it supports its argument with claims made by prisoners. When I think back about prior information I had about this topic, I also wasn't entirely convinced that this is indeed, unquestionably slavery. In fact, I can see a reasonable world in which this might not be slavery. Perhaps a world in which there are some occasions where a judge would rule that this is slavery, but not systematic actual slavery. You might think that I'm unreasonable in being skeptic and wanting a stronger proof before accepting this claim. But this is an extraordinary claim, and it would require extraordinary proofs. Just reading an article presenting one side of the story and concluding "it's slavery" doesn't cut it to me. It's intellectually dishonest. It sounds good as a party line, as a slogan, but it's not a cold headed conclusion, in my book. * * * And I think that denying this is problematic. Because in denying that it's not clear cut, we jump to conclusions, and we make it a cardinal sin to say anything else than the party line. And this means we can't think this through and examine the situation for what it is. We can't talk about it intellectually like you'd want of an HN discussion. We can only talk about it in flames, screams and battles. And what's the point of that.

moate 4y ago

This is not reductive. This is slavery. When you call Hitler Hitler, you're not being dramatic, you're just pointing out facts. Sometimes there's nuance, sometimes there's "the state preserving slavery".

AYBABTME 4y ago
Perhaps it's slavery, perhaps it's not. I think you're jumping the gun in calling it a done, unambiguous fact. I think I'm a sensible person, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that it might be slavery. But if I read this article, I don't find it sufficient in proving its claim. It supposes that this might be slavery, it supports its argument with claims made by prisoners. When I think back about prior information I had about this topic, I also wasn't entirely convinced that this is indeed, unquestionably slavery. In fact, I can see a reasonable world in which this might not be slavery. Perhaps a world in which there are some occasions where a judge would rule that this is slavery, but not systematic actual slavery. You might think that I'm unreasonable in being skeptic and wanting a stronger proof before accepting this claim. But this is an extraordinary claim, and it would require extraordinary proofs. Just reading an article presenting one side of the story and concluding "it's slavery" doesn't cut it to me. It's intellectually dishonest. It sounds good as a party line, as a slogan, but it's not a cold headed conclusion, in my book. * * * And I think that denying this is problematic. Because in denying that it's not clear cut, we jump to conclusions, and we make it a cardinal sin to say anything else than the party line. And this means we can't think this through and examine the situation for what it is. We can't talk about it intellectually like you'd want of an HN discussion. We can only talk about it in flames, screams and battles. And what's the point of that.